Pages

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Scientific evidence for the soul?

As many of you know, Radio 4 has Thought for the Day: "A unique reflection from a faith perspective on topical issues and news events. Speakers from across the world's major faiths offer a spiritual insight rooted in the theology of their own tradition. " Last Wednesday's Thought for the Day came into my consciousness as I was waking up, and I thought it said that scientific evidence had been found for the soul. I've finally had a chance to check it out.

The evidence in question relates to research done at the University of Michigan into near death experiences. The amazing Ed Yong has written about the research "In dying brains, signs of heightened consciousness" which you should read if you want a deeper understanding than the sentences that follow, which don't do the research justice. The team found that, after killing nine rats, in each one the low gamma waves of the brain got very strong. These have been associated with conscious experiences. It's early days, but these finding might help shed light on the near death experiences which are felt by 1 in 5 people who are resuscitated after their hearts stop.

For Akhandadhi Das: "...this experiment is a good example of how scientific results can be interpreted in two rather different ways.

On one hand preceding on the assumption that the brain is the source of consciousness, these results appear to show neural activity that might explain why some people who've returned from the brink of death say that they've experienced feelings of calm and peace as well as seeing visions of light or heaven, however it's possible to approach the issue from the opposite direction. Say we suppose that within the body there is a soul that is the source of consciousness, and that thoughts and emotions of the conscious soul stimulate neural activity in our brains. In this scenario a scientific mind might expect to see evidence of a short period of conscious trauma between the times when the body stops functioning and the soul actually leaves. Sure enough, there is. So the Michigan near death results could also be said to offer proof to support this theory. "

This to me is a post hoc rationalisation, which also doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Why would you expect a short period of conscious trauma between the body stopping to function and the soul leaving the body? Why would that happen, and not the soul leaving at the same time as the body stops functioning? If the soul is the source of consciousness, why is it that the soul has to stimulate the brain? Why not the brain stimulate the soul?

Now, if it is the soul that is the source of consciousness, and we get access to this through its stimulation of the brain, this might explain why, after brain damage, someone no longer has access to certain memories, functions or feelings. The soul is trying to stimulate that area of the brain, but it is damaged. But if this is the case, how can the soul be viewed as the source of consciousness? The brain must surely be seen as the source of consciousness - for it is the organ that we are needing to experience things, and without it functioning, these things are inaccessible, even if they are (somehow) retained in the soul.

Let's suppose Akhandadi Das has it wrong though, and it's the brain that stimulates the soul. In this case, when we get brain damage, and the soul can no longer be stimulated, we lose certain memories, functions or feelings, because the brain cannot evoke these in the soul . But here, again, it is the brain that is needed, not the soul.

No, the idea of the soul is another religious idea we can consign to history. As Sam Harris says in the Moral Landscape (which is a very good and thought provoking book):

"While the ultimate relationship between consciousness and matter has not been settled, any naive conception of a soul can now be jettisoned on account of the mind's obvious dependency upon the brain. The idea that there might be an immortal soul capable of reasoning, feeling love, remembering life events, etc., all the while being metaphysically independent of the brain seems untenable given that damage to the relevant neural circuits obliterates these capabilities in a living person."

This Thought For The Day, to me, is a good example of how the faithful use science. Science and religion are mutually incompatible (science requires we take things on evidence, religion requires we take things on faith). Religious people love to use science when it backs up, or appears to back up, their religion, as this Thought For The Day Shows.

"We have already compared the benefits of theology and science. When the theologian governed the world, it was covered with huts and hovels for the many, palaces and cathedrals for the few. To nearly all the children of men, reading and writing were unknown arts. The poor were clad in rags and skins — they devoured crusts, and gnawed bones. The day of Science dawned, and the luxuries of a century ago are the necessities of to-day. Men in the middle ranks of life have more of the conveniences and elegancies than the princes and kings of the theological times. But above and over all this, is the development of mind. There is more of value in the brain of an average man of to-day—of a master-mechanic, of a chemist, of a naturalist, of an inventor, than there was in the brain of the world four hundred years ago.

These blessings did not fall from the skies. These benefits did not drop from the outstretched hands of priests. They were not found in cathedrals or behind altars — neither were they searched for with holy candles. They were not discovered by the closed eyes of prayer, nor did they come in answer to superstitious supplication. They are the children of freedom, the gifts of reason, observation and experience — and for them all, man is indebted to man. They were not found in cathedrals or behind altars — neither were they searched for with holy candles. They were not discovered by the closed eyes of prayer, nor did they come in answer to superstitious supplication. They are the children of freedom, the gifts of reason, observation and experience — and for them all, man is indebted to man."

God in the Constitution (1890).

For the full Thought For The Transcript, see below.
Here is the full transcript for the Thought For The Day, in case it gets taken down. I transcribed this myself, if there are any errors, they're all mine - please point them out so I can correct them:

Out of many experiments that rats endure on our behalf, perhaps near death experiences are a short straw, for the poor rats, they're a certain death experience.

The University of Michigan has been investigating the phenomena in which about 1 in 5 survivors of cardiac arrests see a white light or a tunnel. This has yielded surprising results. Even after the point of clinical death, when the heart has stopped and there is no flow of blood to the brain, the brain reveals electrical activity normally associated with a hyper alerted state of awareness.

Putting the ethics of animal testing aside, I've no dispute whatsoever with the science nor with the findings, but i do think this experiment is a good example of how scientific results can be interpreted in two rather different ways.

On one hand preceding on the assumption that the brain is the source of consciousness, these results appear to show neural activity that might explain why some people who've returned from the brink of death say that they've experienced feelings of calm and peace as well as seeing visions of light or heaven, however it's possible to approach the issue from the opposite direction. Say we suppose that within the body there is a soul that is the source of consciousness, and that thoughts and emotions of the conscious soul stimulate neural activity in our brains. In this scenario a scientific mind might expect to see evidence of a short period of conscious trauma between the times when the body stops functioning and the soul actually leaves. Sure enough, there is. So the Michigan near death results could also be said to offer proof to support this theory.

Which ever approach we prefer the results do suggest that we may need to review our definition of clinical death. It seems clear that life continues to cling on during this precarious near death state.

The reports of seeing light in the tunnel at the time of death have been around for thousands of years, one old Vedic text describes that when the body stops the soul may at first be fearful, with no idea of what is to happen or where to go, but the transcendental white light offers reassurance and illumination for the soul to proceed peacefully along its route out of the body. The fact that near death phenomena is demonstrated in rats is also consistent with the Hindu idea that conscious souls are present in all species, not just humans.

So the debate between brain and soul continues. Which one is responsible for consciousness? The rats might say, "You humans can keep on arguing, but just leave us out of it."